auth_disable_user

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two key behaviors: sign-ins and token refreshes fail, and the change is reversible. It does not say whether already-issued tokens are invalidated immediately, whether disabling an already-disabled account errors, or whether a multi-uid call is atomic — gaps that matter for an unannotated mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and immediately follows with the observable consequence. There is no redundant restatement of the tool name and no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter, zero-required mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the effect and reversibility but leaves the calling contract underspecified. Nothing tells the agent what must be supplied (a call with no parameters is schema-valid) or what the response contains.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it does not explain the uid vs. uids alternative, nor what omitting tenant implies beyond the schema's own note about project-level users.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Disable') on a specific resource ('an Auth emulator account') and states the concrete effect, so it is clearly distinct from auth_delete_user or auth_revoke_tokens. It stops short of naming auth_enable_user explicitly as the counterpart, so it does not fully reach the sibling-differentiation bar for a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for making an account unable to authenticate, and the phrase 'until it is enabled again' hints at auth_enable_user as the reversing action. There is no explicit when-to-use versus auth_revoke_tokens/auth_delete_user, and no statement about preconditions such as the account existing or already being disabled.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.